Question:
> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a fuel > source.
So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. Best, Dan. — http://lakeweb.net http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a fuel > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not replace oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a liquid fuel in any significant quantities. Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s use reduce atmospheric pollution. A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro and others (1997) concludes: Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of it. GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a fuel > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the energy we put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the energy. Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and have for years, so why even bring it up? — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not replace > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro > and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of > it. > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > > source. > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > Best, Dan. > > — > > http://lakeweb.net > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then.
As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies. However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food waste products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the future of renewable energy, but part of the picture.
Response:
Spence is full of it, He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither have those who like to quote him. Easy enough to say. Where’s your proof. Or are you just full of BS. Work for ADM? I’ll lay odds you do. Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let so much BS be spread so far. Biomass is a farce. Go peddle your weak minded BS somewhere else, try disneyland, I hear they like Mikey Mouses like you.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither > have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the energy we > put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the energy. > Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and have > for years, so why even bring it up? > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not replace > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" > in > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the > extent > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive > erosion > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery > is > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are > converted > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being > used > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 > percent > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to > make > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces > just > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes > and > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of > the > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for > ethanol > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does > it’s > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro > and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use > of > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction > of > it. > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust > from > > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is > a > > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t > a > > fuel > > > > source. > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > > > Best, Dan. > > > — > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
This guy is lying his ass off. Is that how you make money, just keep spouting lies untill someone believe it? Biomass is a farce.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put > in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
>>So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the > economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to > become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies.
Well, Steve has brought links along concerning algae. This could have the potential of realistic yields. I’ve heard it could be as much as 10% solar efficient. But what I haven’t seen yet is a concise study of the long term cost of production. How much infrastructure input, and processing that is actually required. But crop fuels are something else. > However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food waste > products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, > etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them > available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the > future of renewable energy, but part of the picture.
These are strategies in conservation. Using old french fry oil as a fuel is the same. Conservation can have a powerful effect in reducing a required energy. Switchgrass is the best North American crop I could find as an energy source. But the last time I looked at published yields, it would take an area larger than this country to produce 25 quad. So, I have to wonder about the hidden cost of this production and I may be wrong. But what would be the energy for the infrastructure and processing off an area this large? Best, Dan. — http://lakeweb.net http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let > so much BS be spread so far.
Brazil’s near bankruptcy in their attempt to switch to an ethanol economy is particularly illustrative. Http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the > economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to > become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies. > Well, Steve has brought links along concerning algae. This could have > the potential of realistic yields. I’ve heard it could be as much as 10% > solar efficient. But what I haven’t seen yet is a concise study of the > long term cost of production. How much infrastructure input, and > processing that is actually required. > But crop fuels are something else. > However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food waste > products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, > etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them > available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the > future of renewable energy, but part of the picture. > These are strategies in conservation. Using old french fry oil as a fuel > is the same. Conservation can have a powerful effect in reducing a > required energy. > Switchgrass is the best North American crop I could find as an energy > source. But the last time I looked at published yields, it would take an > area larger than this country to produce 25 quad. So, I have to wonder > about the hidden cost of this production and I may be wrong. But what > would be the energy for the infrastructure and processing off an area > this large? > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Boimass for fuel is not new ……the industrial revoltution would have never happened without biomass And the people didn’t die out either. Though many confuse bad land management with crop growth….. I can assure you that with forestry management we have more trees now than in the past here in the Pineywoods. But then the entire country is up 10-15% over 100 years ago…..inspite of land clearing for cities and row crops. adjustment for fuel crops is the banning of oversea food shipments.To open up pasture and feilds to trees or whatever the energy crop is. You can look at Haiti and then Dominion Republic next door and see the difference land mangement makes. then none of your examples were. On algae the cheapest method seems to be like our Texas rice farmers.Yes, cows are not the only crop,though people do give funny looks about imagined ideas about Texas farming. Another note on land management …..there are some African countries that few in the Black Cautus want to remember. Because political influence has turned a breadbasket area into a food disaster for political gain of the leaders in power. So land area is not the only issue influencing crop yeild…. Besides if that land area is all that important …..maybe we can go the route of some the extreme illegal Mexicans.Assign a land value to each illegal and reprossess that many acres of Mexico.Wiith bean counters at the border gates….might own all of Central and South America by the end of the decade given the present political climate on both sides of the asile. .
Response:
nospam is a known liar, and a fool besides. Been working corn and dairy for years, in addition to my IT work. I work for no one but myself. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Spence is full of it, He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither > have those who like to quote him. > Easy enough to say. Where’s your proof. Or are you just full of BS. > Work for ADM? I’ll lay odds you do. > Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let > so much BS be spread so far. > Biomass is a farce. Go peddle your weak minded BS somewhere else, try > disneyland, I hear they like Mikey Mouses like you. > Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and > neither > have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the energy > we > put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the > energy. > Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and have > for years, so why even bring it up? > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it > will > > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not > replace > > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy > "crisis" > in > > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the > extent > > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive > erosion > > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy > recovery > is > > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to > a > > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are > converted > > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It > > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, > > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being > used > > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. > corn > > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. > Ethanol > > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 > percent > > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to > make > > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces > just > > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes > and > > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, > ethanol > > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of > the > > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs > (gasoline > > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for > ethanol > > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does > it’s > > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by > Giampietro > > and others (1997) concludes: > > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current > use > of > > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction > of > > it. > > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > > > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust > from > > > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > > > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there > is > a > > > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides > isn’t > a > > > fuel > > > > > source. > > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > > > > Best, Dan. > > > > — > > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Funny how something that is pure BS makes up 10% of our gasoline supply, and a greater percentage of the beverage industry. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let > so much BS be spread so far. > Brazil’s near bankruptcy in their attempt to switch to an ethanol > economy is particularly illustrative. > Http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf > — > Many thanks, > Don Lancaster > Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 > Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Response:
You lying sack of bird droppings. I used to farm for a living. Now I make my money in IT, and I farm for research and as a plan B. Everything I quote I have personally researched and proven, or quote agencies who have. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This guy is lying his ass off. Is that how you make money, just keep > spouting lies untill someone believe it? > Biomass is a farce. > Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy > put > in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > > source. > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > Best, Dan. > > — > > http://lakeweb.net > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
>Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put >in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process.
Fertilisers (nitrogen) are the biggest energy input to many crops. For a better net gain, a nitrogen fixing crop should be chosen.
Response:
Arnold, you may have missed the point. "Crop fuels" are probably things like ethanol, with the primary function being as a fuel. Wood chips and sawdust are secondary products of a process whose chief application is construction. For any process where the primary product makes money, any secondary product, by default, will add to profitability unless you have to pay to have it hauled off. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust > from the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there > is a truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like >> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t >> a fuel source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and > neither have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 > times the energy we put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives > us back 4 times the energy. Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters > elimanate NOx as an issue, and have for years, so why even bring it > up?
He brings it up because he knows that the HUGE volume of fuel you would have to produce to displace oil consumption makes this idea a loser. For niche markets, it probably will contribute. However, it is not the "savior" that many believe.
Response:
Indeed. we rotate crops for that reason. know any good nitrogen fixing oil crops? — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put >in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > Fertilisers (nitrogen) are the biggest energy input to many crops. > For a better net gain, a nitrogen fixing crop should be chosen.
Response:
> Funny how something that is pure BS makes up 10% of our gasoline > supply, and a greater percentage of the beverage industry.
(cut) But it doesn’t make up 10% of the gasoline supply. I should know. I have 6 years of gasoline blending experience with Shell Oil. In that 6 years, Shell Oil in Deer Park blended one and only one ethanol blend. This means that a substantial portion of the Gulf Coast region has no ethanol in its gasoline. I suspect that only regions with a strong ADM lobby have this stuff. Ethanol is real trouble when it comes to meeting the modern "environmental" specifications on gasoline, for reasons that I don’t need to go into. In addition, there probably isn’t enough spare farm land in the U.S. to produce the ethanol required to blend all gasoline with ethanol. In addition to that, ethanol will act as a cosolvent for gasoline components, and speed the migration of gasoline components through the water table where ever it leaks. Need I go on?
Response:
I’d rather have ethanol in my gas than MTBE. Fortunately NY is a progressive state in that regard. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Funny how something that is pure BS makes up 10% of our gasoline > supply, and a greater percentage of the beverage industry. > (cut) > But it doesn’t make up 10% of the gasoline supply. I should know. I have 6 > years of gasoline blending experience with Shell Oil. In that 6 years, > Shell Oil in Deer Park blended one and only one ethanol blend. This means > that a substantial portion of the Gulf Coast region has no ethanol in its > gasoline. I suspect that only regions with a strong ADM lobby have this > stuff. > Ethanol is real trouble when it comes to meeting the modern "environmental" > specifications on gasoline, for reasons that I don’t need to go into. In > addition, there probably isn’t enough spare farm land in the U.S. to produce > the ethanol required to blend all gasoline with ethanol. In addition to > that, ethanol will act as a cosolvent for gasoline components, and speed the > migration of gasoline components through the water table where ever it > leaks. > Need I go on?
Response:
posted: >Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will >never replace oil in any significant quantities.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting this. >Biomass will not replace >oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in >oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause.
Howsabout "Biomass can replace SOME oil" ? >Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent >that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion >in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of >Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is >low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a >liquid fuel in any significant quantities.
What about waste from silviculture? >Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted >to alcohol.
Not good as corn requires massive energy input in the form of nitrogen ferts. Try a legume of other nitrogen fixer. >In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It >takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, >1998).
Yep, see above. >Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used >as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn >production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol >has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent >mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make >up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as >advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states:
So, grow an oil crop that fixes its own nitrogen. Use the waste for cattle feed of fish feed or whatever. > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just >as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and >alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air >pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol >production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems.
Then don’t use it. Vegertable oils are much better and safer. >With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the >fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline >and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol >production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s >use reduce atmospheric pollution.
So what about making it from silviculture waste that is fertilised with sewage waste? More ways of killing a cat… But condeming something coz it can’t replace everything is as silly as greenies whinging that vitamin A enhanced rice is evil soz it does not supply ALL the dietary needs of this vitamin. >A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro >and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of >oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of >it.
Seven or eight year old info. When you factor in present and potential GM plants….. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of >Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > > source. > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > Best, Dan. > > — > > http://lakeweb.net > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Spence, Give it up. Cropfuels will never work. ADM is the only reason that it is still alive today. Their contributions to congress buys the midwest farm vote. Personally I don’t care if you try to drink the stuff. Lot’s of moonshiners did. I ask for proof, you have replied with none. From that point I question your integrity. I am still waiting for proof that you can replace gasoline with ethanol. As we see from this post, ADM has bought your vote. Let me quess, you live in Iowa. Give up ethanol. We found out 25 years ago here in OK it’s a lost cause. Makes a good drinkin whiskey if you distill right, but useless as fuel. It’s use in gasoline is probably exacerbating the depletion of fossil fuels. Now, if you want use wood chips from a sawmill to heat a greenhouse, or make wood pellets for pellet fired stoves, be my guest, that’s a decent plan to use trash, but it will never replace fossil fuels. Don’t WASTE our valuable cropland growing corn. Once you lose fossil fueled fertilizers your yeild per acre will likely drop from the current 120-130 bushels back to 20-30 bushels. All crop yields will fall without those fertilizers, and we are going to need ALL the cropland we can find to produce food. Don’t waste fossil fuels and valuable crop land to make and energy wasting product such as ethanol. Hmm, a corn farmer, a dairyman, and Information Technology to boot, quite a rounded individual I would say. I wonder who the real liar is?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> nospam is a known liar, and a fool besides. Been working corn and dairy for > years, in addition to my IT work. I work for no one but myself. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > Spence is full of it, He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither > have those who like to quote him. > Easy enough to say. Where’s your proof. Or are you just full of BS. > Work for ADM? I’ll lay odds you do. > Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can > let > so much BS be spread so far. > Biomass is a farce. Go peddle your weak minded BS somewhere else, try > disneyland, I hear they like Mikey Mouses like you. > > Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and > neither > > have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the > energy > we > > put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the > energy. > > Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and > have > > for years, so why even bring it up? > > — > > Steve Spence > > Renewable energy and sustainable living > > http://www.green-trust.org > > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > > powered diesels at > > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > > Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it > will > > > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not > replace > > > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy > "crisis" > > in > > > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would > cause. > > > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the > > extent > > > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive > > erosion > > > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > > > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy > recovery > > is > > > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it > to > a > > > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > > > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are > > converted > > > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. > It > > > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it > (Pimentel, > > > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from > being > > used > > > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. > corn > > > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. > Ethanol > > > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 > > percent > > > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased > to > > make > > > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > > > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > > > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces > > just > > > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds > aldehydes > > and > > > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > > > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, > ethanol > > > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > > > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost > of > > the > > > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs > (gasoline > > > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for > > ethanol > > > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does > > it’s > > > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > > > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by > Giampietro > > > and others (1997) concludes: > > > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current > use > > of > > > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant > fraction > > of > > > it. > > > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > > > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > > > > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and > sawdust > > from > > > > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > > > > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And > there > is > > a > > > > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like > stated. > > > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides > isn’t > > a > > > > fuel > > > > > > source. > > > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > > then. > > > > > Best, Dan. > > > > > — > > > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Oooh, Maybe you can use those to eat while you raise your corn to make fuel for autos. A farmer cum IT man. Maybe you ought to go back to plan A.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You lying sack of bird droppings. > I used to farm for a living. Now I make my money in IT, and I farm for > research and as a plan B. Everything I quote I have personally researched > and proven, or quote agencies who have. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > This guy is lying his ass off. Is that how you make money, just keep > spouting lies untill someone believe it? > Biomass is a farce. > > Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy > put > > in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > > — > > Steve Spence > > Renewable energy and sustainable living > > http://www.green-trust.org > > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > > powered diesels at > > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t > a > > fuel > > > > source. > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > > > Best, Dan. > > > — > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Arnold, Great idea, let the illegals in and take their land. It’s kinda funny. But don’t forget, for each new illegal coming into the US, it’s just another mouth that will have to be fed when crunch time comes. If we are throwing out oddball ideas. I have a better idea. Let’s leave them down there and let them try to grow cropfuels. See how long that lasts, and if they can’t get the job done, send the army down and persuade them to continue.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the > > economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to > > become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies. > Well, Steve has brought links along concerning algae. This could have > the potential of realistic yields. I’ve heard it could be as much as 10% > solar efficient. But what I haven’t seen yet is a concise study of the > long term cost of production. How much infrastructure input, and > processing that is actually required. > But crop fuels are something else. > > However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food > waste > > products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, > > etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them > > available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the > > future of renewable energy, but part of the picture. > These are strategies in conservation. Using old french fry oil as a fuel > is the same. Conservation can have a powerful effect in reducing a > required energy. > Switchgrass is the best North American crop I could find as an energy > source. But the last time I looked at published yields, it would take an > area larger than this country to produce 25 quad. So, I have to wonder > about the hidden cost of this production and I may be wrong. But what > would be the energy for the infrastructure and processing off an area > this large? > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com > Boimass for fuel is not new ……the industrial revoltution would have > never happened without biomass > And the people didn’t die out either. > Though many confuse bad land management with crop growth….. > I can assure you that with forestry management we have more trees now than > in the past here in the Pineywoods. > But then the entire country is up 10-15% over 100 years ago…..inspite of > land clearing for cities and row crops. one > adjustment for fuel crops is the banning > of oversea food shipments.To open up pasture and feilds to trees or whatever > the energy crop is. > You can look at Haiti and then Dominion Republic next door and see the > difference land mangement makes. > then none of your examples were. > On algae the cheapest method seems to be like our Texas rice farmers.Yes, > cows are not the only crop,though people > do give funny looks about imagined ideas about Texas farming. > Another note on land management …..there are some African countries that > few in the Black Cautus want to remember. > Because political influence has turned a breadbasket area into a food > disaster for political gain of the leaders in power. > So land area is not the only issue influencing crop yeild…. > Besides if that land area is all that important …..maybe we can go the > route of some the extreme illegal Mexicans.Assign > a land value to each illegal and reprossess that many acres of Mexico.Wiith > bean counters at the border gates….might own all of > Central and South America by the end of the decade given the present > political climate on both sides of the asile. .
Response:
> posted: >Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will >never replace oil in any significant quantities. > I don’t think anyone is suggesting this.
Ok, what are they suggesting? If they aren’t suggesting significant quantities, then they are insignificant quantities, and what’s the point? >Biomass will not replace >oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in >oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > Howsabout "Biomass can replace SOME oil" ?
Oil? or fuel? or both? Fuels are refined from crude oil. How much, 10% would be about 2 million BOE/day. >Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent >that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion >in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of >Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is >low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a >liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > What about waste from silviculture?
Great for heating greenhouses, making into pellet fuel for stoves and furnaces and the like. Good use for it if it truely is waste, but so is composting it. >Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted >to alcohol. > Not good as corn requires massive energy input in the form of nitrogen > ferts. Try a legume of other nitrogen fixer.
And alot of other energy inputs. >In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It >takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, >1998). > Yep, see above.
Thank your for agreeing. >Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used >as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn >production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol >has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent >mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make >up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as >advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > So, grow an oil crop that fixes its own nitrogen. Use the waste for > cattle feed of fish feed or whatever.
Is there such a crop? Legumes fix nitrogen. Are they energy positive or negative when all inputs are calculated? Has anyone done the research? Their isn’t much time left and growing crops can take at the very least one growing season. > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just >as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and >alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air >pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol >production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > Then don’t use it. Vegertable oils are much better and safer.
You still have the energy inputs and fertilizer inputs in growing the vegetables. Got any calculations for these? Let’s see, fuel to till the land, fertilizer, fuel to plant the seeds, pesticides and herbicides, fuel to harvest and bring to a vegetable oil processor. Energy needed to process. Energy need to provide additional inputs to make the fuel. Energy needed to distribute the fuel made. I am sure there would be more. Anyone done a calculation? I believe rapeseed is the highest producer of vegetable oil. >With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the >fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline >and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol >production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s >use reduce atmospheric pollution. > So what about making it from silviculture waste that is fertilised > with sewage waste? More ways of killing a cat…
Go right ahead, how much can you produce, and for how long? American oil use is on the order of 20 million BBL/day. How much of it can you replace? What’s the BOE equivelent of a BBL of "cropfuel"? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But condeming something coz it can’t replace everything is as silly as > greenies whinging that vitamin A enhanced rice is evil soz it does not > supply ALL the dietary needs of this vitamin. >A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro >and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of >oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of >it. > Seven or eight year old info. When you factor in present and potential > GM plants…..
Rapeseed, the best of the oil producing seeds is GM modified. It has escaped and thier are lawsuits flying over this escape. Farmers who plant non GM rapeseed have been taken to court because of cross pollination with the GM product. It’s a real issue. Please provide some BOE equivelents for your cropfuels, whether they be ethanol, biodiesel, vegetable oil….. ect. Perhaps with some numbers we could take an educated look at it… but I don’t see any numbers. But, let’s take a look at it from a different direction. Say, without using current food production land for this production, you can provide a "cropfuel" at 10% of the total fuel use today. Say we manage to get that to 20% by the time fossil fuels are depleted, and we add another 10-20% from coal. Limiting that because of the CO2 problem. Say 40% of total fuel used now, with a 60% loss of availability of fuel. Just where is this fuel to go? To continue the automobile? To the farmers? To the trains? The planes? The Truckers? Electric generation to replace the natural gas? A complete solution must be found. Partials will only cause conflict. Who get’s what? Food production 1st? Shipping 1st serve? ect, ect. When you say "cropfuels" are not a complete solution, but we want to use them, that is just pushing your own agenda, be it ethanol, biodiesel, synthetic oil, whatever. What about SUV mom? Jetsetter tween LA and NY? They are all going to WANT fuel? So you better be able to provide them with something and if you can’t….. I personally don’t believe there is a complete solution, using ALL the alternative fuels. Someone, somewhere is going to have to stand up and say, OK people, the auto era is over, get over it. Walk, ride a train, but tough tit, you aren’t getting any fuel. Then… maybe some progress can be made. Certain sectors will have to be fueled, and oil, biodiesel, LNG, hybrids, and all the rest can probably accomplish that…. but not untill we tell people they can’t drive millions of cars to soccer practice or jetset between LA and NY. Hell, oil alone might accomplish it for 50 more years if we cut out the family auto. Damn sure would give us alot more time to come up with a solution. But it’s gonna be a real big problem, very soon, if we don’t get out of our cars soon and see what’s happening. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of >Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. >> Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from >> the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press >> plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a >> truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. >> > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a >> fuel >> > > source. >> > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. >> > Best, Dan. >> > — >> > http://lakeweb.net >> > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> posted: >Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will >never replace oil in any significant quantities. > I don’t think anyone is suggesting this.
Ok, what are they suggesting? If they aren’t suggesting significant quantities, then they are insignificant quantities, and what’s the point? >Biomass will not replace >oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in >oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > Howsabout "Biomass can replace SOME oil" ?
Oil? or fuel? or both? Fuels are refined from crude oil. How much, 10% would be about 2 million BOE/day. >Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent >that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion >in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of >Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is >low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a >liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > What about waste from silviculture?
Great for heating greenhouses, making into pellet fuel for stoves and furnaces and the like. Good use for it if it truely is waste, but so is composting it. >Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted >to alcohol. > Not good as corn requires massive energy input in the form of nitrogen > ferts. Try a legume of other nitrogen fixer.
And alot of other energy inputs. >In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It >takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, >1998). > Yep, see above.
Thank your for agreeing. >Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used >as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn >production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol >has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent >mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make >up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as >advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > So, grow an oil crop that fixes its own nitrogen. Use the waste for > cattle feed of fish feed or whatever.
Is there such a crop? Legumes fix nitrogen. Are they energy positive or negative when all inputs are calculated? Has anyone done the research? Their isn’t much time left and growing crops can take at the very least one growing season. > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just >as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and >alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air >pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol >production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > Then don’t use it. Vegertable oils are much better and safer.
You still have the energy inputs and fertilizer inputs in growing the vegetables. Got any calculations for these? Let’s see, fuel to till the land, fertilizer, fuel to plant the seeds, pesticides and herbicides, fuel to harvest and bring to a vegetable oil processor. Energy needed to process. Energy need to provide additional inputs to make the fuel. Energy needed to distribute the fuel made. I am sure there would be more. Anyone done a calculation? I believe rapeseed is the highest producer of vegetable oil. >With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the >fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline >and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol >production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s >use reduce atmospheric pollution. > So what about making it from silviculture waste that is fertilised > with sewage waste? More ways of killing a cat…
Go right ahead, how much can you produce, and for how long? American oil use is on the order of 20 million BBL/day. How much of it can you replace? What’s the BOE equivelent of a BBL of "cropfuel"? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But condeming something coz it can’t replace everything is as silly as > greenies whinging that vitamin A enhanced rice is evil soz it does not > supply ALL the dietary needs of this vitamin. >A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro >and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of >oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of >it. > Seven or eight year old info. When you factor in present and potential > GM plants…..
Rapeseed, the best of the oil producing seeds is GM modified. It has escaped and thier are lawsuits flying over this escape. Farmers who plant non GM rapeseed have been taken to court because of cross pollination with the GM product. It’s a real issue. Please provide some BOE equivelents for your cropfuels, whether they be ethanol, biodiesel, vegetable oil….. ect. Perhaps with some numbers we could take an educated look at it… but I don’t see any numbers. But, let’s take a look at it from a different direction. Say, without using current food production land for this production, you can provide a "cropfuel" at 10% of the total fuel use today. Say we manage to get that to 20% by the time fossil fuels are depleted, and we add another 10-20% from coal. Limiting that because of the CO2 problem. Say 40% of total fuel used now, with a 60% loss of availability of fuel. Just where is this fuel to go? To continue the automobile? To the farmers? To the trains? The planes? The Truckers? Electric generation to replace the natural gas? A complete solution must be found. Partials will only cause conflict. Who get’s what? Food production 1st? Shipping 1st serve? ect, ect. When you say "cropfuels" are not a complete solution, but we want to use them, that is just pushing your own agenda, be it ethanol, biodiesel, synthetic oil, whatever. What about SUV mom? Jetsetter tween LA and NY? They are all going to WANT fuel? So you better be able to provide them with something and if you can’t….. I personally don’t believe there is a complete solution, using ALL the alternative fuels. Someone, somewhere is going to have to stand up and say, OK people, the auto era is over, get over it. Walk, ride a train, but tough tit, you aren’t getting any fuel. Then… maybe some progress can be made. Certain sectors will have to be fueled, and oil, biodiesel, LNG, hybrids, and all the rest can probably accomplish that…. but not untill we tell people they can’t drive millions of cars to soccer practice or jetset between LA and NY. Hell, oil alone might accomplish it for 50 more years if we cut out the family auto. Damn sure would give us alot more time to come up with a solution. But it’s gonna be a real big problem, very soon, if we don’t get out of our cars soon and see what’s happening. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of >Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. >> Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from >> the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press >> plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a >> truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. >> > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a >> fuel >> > > source. >> > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. >> > Best, Dan. >> > — >> > http://lakeweb.net >> > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Arnold, Great idea, let the illegals in and take their land. It’s kinda funny. But don’t forget, for each new illegal coming into the US, it’s just another mouth that will have to be fed when crunch time comes. If we are throwing out oddball ideas. I have a better idea. Let’s leave them down there and let them try to grow cropfuels. See how long that lasts, and if they can’t get the job done, send the army down and persuade them to continue.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the > > economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to > > become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies. > Well, Steve has brought links along concerning algae. This could have > the potential of realistic yields. I’ve heard it could be as much as 10% > solar efficient. But what I haven’t seen yet is a concise study of the > long term cost of production. How much infrastructure input, and > processing that is actually required. > But crop fuels are something else. > > However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food > waste > > products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, > > etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them > > available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the > > future of renewable energy, but part of the picture. > These are strategies in conservation. Using old french fry oil as a fuel > is the same. Conservation can have a powerful effect in reducing a > required energy. > Switchgrass is the best North American crop I could find as an energy > source. But the last time I looked at published yields, it would take an > area larger than this country to produce 25 quad. So, I have to wonder > about the hidden cost of this production and I may be wrong. But what > would be the energy for the infrastructure and processing off an area > this large? > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com > Boimass for fuel is not new ……the industrial revoltution would have > never happened without biomass > And the people didn’t die out either. > Though many confuse bad land management with crop growth….. > I can assure you that with forestry management we have more trees now than > in the past here in the Pineywoods. > But then the entire country is up 10-15% over 100 years ago…..inspite of > land clearing for cities and row crops. one > adjustment for fuel crops is the banning > of oversea food shipments.To open up pasture and feilds to trees or whatever > the energy crop is. > You can look at Haiti and then Dominion Republic next door and see the > difference land mangement makes. > then none of your examples were. > On algae the cheapest method seems to be like our Texas rice farmers.Yes, > cows are not the only crop,though people > do give funny looks about imagined ideas about Texas farming. > Another note on land management …..there are some African countries that > few in the Black Cautus want to remember. > Because political influence has turned a breadbasket area into a food > disaster for political gain of the leaders in power. > So land area is not the only issue influencing crop yeild…. > Besides if that land area is all that important …..maybe we can go the > route of some the extreme illegal Mexicans.Assign > a land value to each illegal and reprossess that many acres of Mexico.Wiith > bean counters at the border gates….might own all of > Central and South America by the end of the decade given the present > political climate on both sides of the asile. .
Response:
Oooh, Maybe you can use those to eat while you raise your corn to make fuel for autos. A farmer cum IT man. Maybe you ought to go back to plan A.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> You lying sack of bird droppings. > I used to farm for a living. Now I make my money in IT, and I farm for > research and as a plan B. Everything I quote I have personally researched > and proven, or quote agencies who have. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > This guy is lying his ass off. Is that how you make money, just keep > spouting lies untill someone believe it? > Biomass is a farce. > > Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy > put > > in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > > — > > Steve Spence > > Renewable energy and sustainable living > > http://www.green-trust.org > > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > > powered diesels at > > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t > a > > fuel > > > > source. > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > > > Best, Dan. > > > — > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Spence, Give it up. Cropfuels will never work. ADM is the only reason that it is still alive today. Their contributions to congress buys the midwest farm vote. Personally I don’t care if you try to drink the stuff. Lot’s of moonshiners did. I ask for proof, you have replied with none. From that point I question your integrity. I am still waiting for proof that you can replace gasoline with ethanol. As we see from this post, ADM has bought your vote. Let me quess, you live in Iowa. Give up ethanol. We found out 25 years ago here in OK it’s a lost cause. Makes a good drinkin whiskey if you distill right, but useless as fuel. It’s use in gasoline is probably exacerbating the depletion of fossil fuels. Now, if you want use wood chips from a sawmill to heat a greenhouse, or make wood pellets for pellet fired stoves, be my guest, that’s a decent plan to use trash, but it will never replace fossil fuels. Don’t WASTE our valuable cropland growing corn. Once you lose fossil fueled fertilizers your yeild per acre will likely drop from the current 120-130 bushels back to 20-30 bushels. All crop yields will fall without those fertilizers, and we are going to need ALL the cropland we can find to produce food. Don’t waste fossil fuels and valuable crop land to make and energy wasting product such as ethanol. Hmm, a corn farmer, a dairyman, and Information Technology to boot, quite a rounded individual I would say. I wonder who the real liar is?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> nospam is a known liar, and a fool besides. Been working corn and dairy for > years, in addition to my IT work. I work for no one but myself. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > Spence is full of it, He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither > have those who like to quote him. > Easy enough to say. Where’s your proof. Or are you just full of BS. > Work for ADM? I’ll lay odds you do. > Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can > let > so much BS be spread so far. > Biomass is a farce. Go peddle your weak minded BS somewhere else, try > disneyland, I hear they like Mikey Mouses like you. > > Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and > neither > > have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the > energy > we > > put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the > energy. > > Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and > have > > for years, so why even bring it up? > > — > > Steve Spence > > Renewable energy and sustainable living > > http://www.green-trust.org > > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > > powered diesels at > > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > > Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it > will > > > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not > replace > > > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy > "crisis" > > in > > > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would > cause. > > > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the > > extent > > > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive > > erosion > > > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > > > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy > recovery > > is > > > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it > to > a > > > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > > > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are > > converted > > > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. > It > > > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it > (Pimentel, > > > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from > being > > used > > > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. > corn > > > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. > Ethanol > > > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 > > percent > > > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased > to > > make > > > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > > > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > > > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces > > just > > > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds > aldehydes > > and > > > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > > > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, > ethanol > > > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > > > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost > of > > the > > > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs > (gasoline > > > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for > > ethanol > > > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does > > it’s > > > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > > > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by > Giampietro > > > and others (1997) concludes: > > > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current > use > > of > > > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant > fraction > > of > > > it. > > > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > > > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > > > > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and > sawdust > > from > > > > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > > > > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And > there > is > > a > > > > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like > stated. > > > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides > isn’t > > a > > > > fuel > > > > > > source. > > > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > > then. > > > > > Best, Dan. > > > > > — > > > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
I’d rather have ethanol in my gas than MTBE. Fortunately NY is a progressive state in that regard. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Funny how something that is pure BS makes up 10% of our gasoline > supply, and a greater percentage of the beverage industry. > (cut) > But it doesn’t make up 10% of the gasoline supply. I should know. I have 6 > years of gasoline blending experience with Shell Oil. In that 6 years, > Shell Oil in Deer Park blended one and only one ethanol blend. This means > that a substantial portion of the Gulf Coast region has no ethanol in its > gasoline. I suspect that only regions with a strong ADM lobby have this > stuff. > Ethanol is real trouble when it comes to meeting the modern "environmental" > specifications on gasoline, for reasons that I don’t need to go into. In > addition, there probably isn’t enough spare farm land in the U.S. to produce > the ethanol required to blend all gasoline with ethanol. In addition to > that, ethanol will act as a cosolvent for gasoline components, and speed the > migration of gasoline components through the water table where ever it > leaks. > Need I go on?
Response:
posted: >Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will >never replace oil in any significant quantities.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting this. >Biomass will not replace >oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in >oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause.
Howsabout "Biomass can replace SOME oil" ? >Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent >that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion >in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of >Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is >low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a >liquid fuel in any significant quantities.
What about waste from silviculture? >Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted >to alcohol.
Not good as corn requires massive energy input in the form of nitrogen ferts. Try a legume of other nitrogen fixer. >In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It >takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, >1998).
Yep, see above. >Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used >as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn >production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol >has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent >mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make >up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as >advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states:
So, grow an oil crop that fixes its own nitrogen. Use the waste for cattle feed of fish feed or whatever. > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just >as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and >alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air >pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol >production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems.
Then don’t use it. Vegertable oils are much better and safer. >With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the >fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline >and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol >production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s >use reduce atmospheric pollution.
So what about making it from silviculture waste that is fertilised with sewage waste? More ways of killing a cat… But condeming something coz it can’t replace everything is as silly as greenies whinging that vitamin A enhanced rice is evil soz it does not supply ALL the dietary needs of this vitamin. >A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro >and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of >oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of >it.
Seven or eight year old info. When you factor in present and potential GM plants….. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of >Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > > source. > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > Best, Dan. > > — > > http://lakeweb.net > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> Funny how something that is pure BS makes up 10% of our gasoline > supply, and a greater percentage of the beverage industry.
(cut) But it doesn’t make up 10% of the gasoline supply. I should know. I have 6 years of gasoline blending experience with Shell Oil. In that 6 years, Shell Oil in Deer Park blended one and only one ethanol blend. This means that a substantial portion of the Gulf Coast region has no ethanol in its gasoline. I suspect that only regions with a strong ADM lobby have this stuff. Ethanol is real trouble when it comes to meeting the modern "environmental" specifications on gasoline, for reasons that I don’t need to go into. In addition, there probably isn’t enough spare farm land in the U.S. to produce the ethanol required to blend all gasoline with ethanol. In addition to that, ethanol will act as a cosolvent for gasoline components, and speed the migration of gasoline components through the water table where ever it leaks. Need I go on?
Response:
> Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and > neither have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 > times the energy we put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives > us back 4 times the energy. Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters > elimanate NOx as an issue, and have for years, so why even bring it > up?
He brings it up because he knows that the HUGE volume of fuel you would have to produce to displace oil consumption makes this idea a loser. For niche markets, it probably will contribute. However, it is not the "savior" that many believe.
Response:
Indeed. we rotate crops for that reason. know any good nitrogen fixing oil crops? — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put >in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > Fertilisers (nitrogen) are the biggest energy input to many crops. > For a better net gain, a nitrogen fixing crop should be chosen.
Response:
>Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put >in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process.
Fertilisers (nitrogen) are the biggest energy input to many crops. For a better net gain, a nitrogen fixing crop should be chosen.
Response:
Arnold, you may have missed the point. "Crop fuels" are probably things like ethanol, with the primary function being as a fuel. Wood chips and sawdust are secondary products of a process whose chief application is construction. For any process where the primary product makes money, any secondary product, by default, will add to profitability unless you have to pay to have it hauled off. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust > from the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there > is a truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like >> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t >> a fuel source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
You lying sack of bird droppings. I used to farm for a living. Now I make my money in IT, and I farm for research and as a plan B. Everything I quote I have personally researched and proven, or quote agencies who have. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This guy is lying his ass off. Is that how you make money, just keep > spouting lies untill someone believe it? > Biomass is a farce. > Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy > put > in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > > source. > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > Best, Dan. > > — > > http://lakeweb.net > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Funny how something that is pure BS makes up 10% of our gasoline supply, and a greater percentage of the beverage industry. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let > so much BS be spread so far. > Brazil’s near bankruptcy in their attempt to switch to an ethanol > economy is particularly illustrative. > Http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf > — > Many thanks, > Don Lancaster > Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 > Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Response:
nospam is a known liar, and a fool besides. Been working corn and dairy for years, in addition to my IT work. I work for no one but myself. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Spence is full of it, He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither > have those who like to quote him. > Easy enough to say. Where’s your proof. Or are you just full of BS. > Work for ADM? I’ll lay odds you do. > Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let > so much BS be spread so far. > Biomass is a farce. Go peddle your weak minded BS somewhere else, try > disneyland, I hear they like Mikey Mouses like you. > Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and > neither > have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the energy > we > put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the > energy. > Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and have > for years, so why even bring it up? > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it > will > > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not > replace > > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy > "crisis" > in > > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the > extent > > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive > erosion > > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy > recovery > is > > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to > a > > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are > converted > > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It > > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, > > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being > used > > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. > corn > > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. > Ethanol > > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 > percent > > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to > make > > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces > just > > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes > and > > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, > ethanol > > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of > the > > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs > (gasoline > > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for > ethanol > > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does > it’s > > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by > Giampietro > > and others (1997) concludes: > > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current > use > of > > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction > of > > it. > > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > > > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust > from > > > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > > > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there > is > a > > > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides > isn’t > a > > > fuel > > > > > source. > > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > > > > Best, Dan. > > > > — > > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to > congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let > so much BS be spread so far.
Brazil’s near bankruptcy in their attempt to switch to an ethanol economy is particularly illustrative. Http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf — Many thanks, Don Lancaster Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 Please visit my GURU’s LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the > economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to > become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies. > Well, Steve has brought links along concerning algae. This could have > the potential of realistic yields. I’ve heard it could be as much as 10% > solar efficient. But what I haven’t seen yet is a concise study of the > long term cost of production. How much infrastructure input, and > processing that is actually required. > But crop fuels are something else. > However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food waste > products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, > etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them > available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the > future of renewable energy, but part of the picture. > These are strategies in conservation. Using old french fry oil as a fuel > is the same. Conservation can have a powerful effect in reducing a > required energy. > Switchgrass is the best North American crop I could find as an energy > source. But the last time I looked at published yields, it would take an > area larger than this country to produce 25 quad. So, I have to wonder > about the hidden cost of this production and I may be wrong. But what > would be the energy for the infrastructure and processing off an area > this large? > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Boimass for fuel is not new ……the industrial revoltution would have never happened without biomass And the people didn’t die out either. Though many confuse bad land management with crop growth….. I can assure you that with forestry management we have more trees now than in the past here in the Pineywoods. But then the entire country is up 10-15% over 100 years ago…..inspite of land clearing for cities and row crops. adjustment for fuel crops is the banning of oversea food shipments.To open up pasture and feilds to trees or whatever the energy crop is. You can look at Haiti and then Dominion Republic next door and see the difference land mangement makes. then none of your examples were. On algae the cheapest method seems to be like our Texas rice farmers.Yes, cows are not the only crop,though people do give funny looks about imagined ideas about Texas farming. Another note on land management …..there are some African countries that few in the Black Cautus want to remember. Because political influence has turned a breadbasket area into a food disaster for political gain of the leaders in power. So land area is not the only issue influencing crop yeild…. Besides if that land area is all that important …..maybe we can go the route of some the extreme illegal Mexicans.Assign a land value to each illegal and reprossess that many acres of Mexico.Wiith bean counters at the border gates….might own all of Central and South America by the end of the decade given the present political climate on both sides of the asile. .
Response:
>>So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the > economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to > become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies.
Well, Steve has brought links along concerning algae. This could have the potential of realistic yields. I’ve heard it could be as much as 10% solar efficient. But what I haven’t seen yet is a concise study of the long term cost of production. How much infrastructure input, and processing that is actually required. But crop fuels are something else. > However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food waste > products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, > etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them > available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the > future of renewable energy, but part of the picture.
These are strategies in conservation. Using old french fry oil as a fuel is the same. Conservation can have a powerful effect in reducing a required energy. Switchgrass is the best North American crop I could find as an energy source. But the last time I looked at published yields, it would take an area larger than this country to produce 25 quad. So, I have to wonder about the hidden cost of this production and I may be wrong. But what would be the energy for the infrastructure and processing off an area this large? Best, Dan. — http://lakeweb.net http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
This guy is lying his ass off. Is that how you make money, just keep spouting lies untill someone believe it? Biomass is a farce.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put > in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Spence is full of it, He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither have those who like to quote him. Easy enough to say. Where’s your proof. Or are you just full of BS. Work for ADM? I’ll lay odds you do. Ethanol is pure BS, kept alive by the huge contributions of ADM to congressman. Amazing how spreading that much money around Washington can let so much BS be spread so far. Biomass is a farce. Go peddle your weak minded BS somewhere else, try disneyland, I hear they like Mikey Mouses like you.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither > have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the energy we > put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the energy. > Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and have > for years, so why even bring it up? > — > Steve Spence > Renewable energy and sustainable living > http://www.green-trust.org > Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel > powered diesels at > http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/ > Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not replace > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" > in > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the > extent > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive > erosion > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery > is > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are > converted > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being > used > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 > percent > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to > make > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces > just > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes > and > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of > the > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for > ethanol > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does > it’s > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro > and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use > of > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction > of > it. > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust > from > > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is > a > > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t > a > > fuel > > > > source. > > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source > then. > > > Best, Dan. > > > — > > > http://lakeweb.net > > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then.
As presently produced, yes. But the current activities are based on the economics of food production, not possible fuel production. You need to become more informed about possible future agri-fuel technologies. However there’s another more immediately relevant point. Where food waste products (i.e. cattle manure and bedding straw, trimmings, spoiled food, etc) are already available then the marginal energy cost to make them available for energy production is far lower. Not a major player in the future of renewable energy, but part of the picture.
Response:
Don’t be silly. Crops give back anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times the energy put in as fuel, depending on crop, fuel, and process. — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a fuel > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Pimental was full of it. He never actually grew a crop of corn, and neither have those who like to quote him. Corn gives us back 1.5 times the energy we put into growing it in ethanol. Biodiesel gives us back 4 times the energy. Fuel crops work! Catalytic converters elimanate NOx as an issue, and have for years, so why even bring it up? — Steve Spence Renewable energy and sustainable living http://www.green-trust.org Discuss vegetable oil and biodiesel powered diesels at http://www.veggievan.org/discuss/
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will > never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not replace > oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in > oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. > Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent > that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion > in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of > Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is > low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a > liquid fuel in any significant quantities. > Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted > to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It > takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, > 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used > as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn > production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol > has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent > mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make > up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as > advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: > Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just > as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and > alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air > pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol > production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. > With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the > fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline > and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol > production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s > use reduce atmospheric pollution. > A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro > and others (1997) concludes: > Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of > oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of > it. > GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of > Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600. > Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > > source. > > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > > Best, Dan. > > — > > http://lakeweb.net > > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Nope, Dan’s right. It may not be an complete energy negative, but it will never replace oil in any significant quantities. Biomass will not replace oil. And shoudn’t be tried. It will simply exacerbate the energy "crisis" in oil and natural gas. Not to mention the ecological mess it would cause. Wood and other biomass. Wood has long been used as a fuel, now to the extent that large areas worldwide are being deforested resulting in massive erosion in such places as the foothills of the Himalayas, and the mountains of Haiti. Wood can be converted to a liquid fuel but the net energy recovery is low, and there is not enough wood available to be able to convert it to a liquid fuel in any significant quantities. Other biomass fuel sources have been tried. Crops such as corn are converted to alcohol. In the case of corn to ethanol, it is an energy negative. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than is obtained from it (Pimentel, 1998). Also, using grain such as corn for fuel, precludes it from being used as food for humans or livestock. It is also hard on the land. In U.S. corn production, soil erodes some 20-times faster than soil is formed. Ethanol has less energy per volume than does gasoline, so when used as a 10 percent mix with gasoline (called gasohol), more gasohol has to be purchased to make up the difference. Also, ethanol is not so environmentally friendly as advocates would like to believe. Pimentel (1998) states: Ethanol produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, but it produces just as much nitrous oxides as gasoline. In addition, ethanol adds aldehydes and alcohol to the atmosphere, all of which are carcinogenic. When all air pollutants associated with the entire ethanol system are measured, ethanol production is found to contribute to major air pollution problems. With a lower energy density than gasoline, and adding the energy cost of the fertilizer (made chiefly from natural gas), and the energy costs (gasoline and/or diesel) to plow, plant, cultivate, and transport the corn for ethanol production, ethanol in total does not save fossil fuel energy nor does it’s use reduce atmospheric pollution. A comprehensive study of converting biomass to liquid fuels by Giampietro and others (1997) concludes: Large scale biofuel production is not an alternative to the current use of oil, and is not even an advisable option to cover a significant fraction of it. GIAMPIETRO, M., ULGIATI, S., and PIMENTEL, D., 1997, Feasibility of Large-Scale Biofuel Production: BioScience, v. 8, n. 9, p. 587-600.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from > the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press > plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a > truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated. > > anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a > fuel > > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a fuel > source.
So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. Best, Dan. — http://lakeweb.net http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Then you would be wrong,,,,,,many logging areas use scrap and sawdust from the logs in electric plants. To cut the lumbers,press plywood,……chip press,and glue particle/waffer board…..And there is a truck load of product going out the gate,not zero or less like stated.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> anything that takes more energy to "fill" it than it provides isn’t a fuel > source. > So far as I can tell, crop fuels are pretty much not a fuel source then. > Best, Dan. > — > http://lakeweb.net > http://ReserveAnalyst.com
Response:
Both Propane and Furnace Oil are sold by the Litre here (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and furnaces are still rated in BTUs/ Hr. I’m trying to make an informed decision on which fuel tp use to replace a worn out oil furnace. The fuel supply people will only give their version of the alleged truth. 
Posted in Electric Furnace | 
No Comments » | 